~ Freedom and Natural Law

Monthly Archives: January 2015

First, the updates. I updated a few pages here at the old blog. I also re-posted an old article and published a new one (see below on main page). I have many other ideas in the works, including clearing out the backlog of draft articles I mentioned last week. I’ve been predicting big things since 2013 with this blog. They’re coming. Really, they’re already happening. I just got back in the swing of things two weeks ago and this month may well be a record as far as traffic goes. Thank you all!

Now … More Things You Can Do:

I love coming up with these lists. I’m not sure if I’ll come up with ten this time but let’s see.

1. Take a day trip. Anywhere. Get in your car and drive a county over. Or, a state. Whatever. Gas is cheap again for a while.

2. Go to a big library. Or a small library. Or a book store. If you’re pressed for time, just swing by Amazon. Books.

3. Go somewhere with a tie and a clipboard and act important. You’ll be surprised how far you’ll get.

Five. I came up with five things on the fly. That’s fifty percent of 10 things….. Oh, there are two more things you can do: 1) go back and read my real articles; 2) tell a friend or two about perrinlovett.me.

Sunday I re-posted a popular column on the Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878 to deter a standing army. It did not work, as I noted in that article. That piece briefly examined the use of the actual, federal military to combat drugs, terror, churches, etc. Here, I want to delve into a growing trend, the development of a psuedo-military, based entirely within our society. I’m writing about the militarization of our domestic police force.

This trend has resulted in a paramilitary police as well-trained and equipped as our national army. Barney Fife has been replaced by an armored, machine gun wielding storm-trooper.

Barney was a goofy, good-natured fellow with one bullet (in his pocket):

(Then. Google Images.)

The new masked face of law enforcement more resembles Darth Vader than a peace officer:

(Now. Google Images.)

William Grigg is far and away the best chronicler of modern, martial law enforcement. Just pick any one of his humorous and shocking articles on police state abuse: Article Archive at lewrockwell.com. Be forewarned, like a Pringles, just one won’t be enough.

I too have written short news notes on this phenomenon, none as good as Will’s.

Here’s a picture of a platoon of “officers” on the hunt for Boston Bombing patsy Dzhokhar Tsarnaev:

(Google Images.)

French police in similar fashion:

(Google, DailyMail, UK.)

The Pose Comitatus Act (“PCA”) reads, in its entirety: “Whoever, except in cases and circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 1385.

There has never been a prosecution under the PCA. Considering the constant creation of exceptions to the Act and the fact that the police are not a direct portion of the Army nor the Air Force, the militarization trend will not run afoul of the watered-down letter of the law. However, it violates the spirit of the law in horrific fashion.

At the end of the Roman Republic, more than twenty centuries ago, Gauis Curio attempted to disarm Caesar’s returning army in order to preserve domestic tranquility. See: Caesar, The Gallic War, Loeb Classical Library, 587 (Harvard U. Press, 2000). As you know, Caesar “crossed the Rubicon” and the Empire shortly thereafter commenced.

In early America the fear of armed military forces present in everyday life was of grave concern to our Founding Fathers. Beginning the Declaration of Independence with a nod to Natural Law, Thomas Jefferson listed the first grievance against the King that “He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. … He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.” Dec. Independence, para. 13 – 14 (1776).

In The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, himself not the greatest proponent of freedom, railed against the standing army as “unsupported by any precise or intelligible designations of reasons.” The Federalist, No. 27 (Hamilton). “Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. ” The Federalist, No. 8 (Hamilton).

A more concise explanation was set forth by Robert Yates: “The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader.” The Anti-Federalist, No. 10 (Brutus [Yates]).

“Brutus” described the plight of both Rome and Britain under the rule of a standing army. “Julius Cesar … changed [Rome] from a free republic, whose fame had sounded, and is still celebrated by all the world, into that of the most absolute despotism. A standing army effected this change, and a standing army supported it through a succession of ages, which are marked in the annals of history, with the most horrid cruelties, bloodshed, and carnage; — The most devilish, beastly, and unnatural vices, that ever punished or disgraced human nature.” Anti-Federalist, No. 10 (Yates).

“The same army, that in Britain, vindicated the liberties of that people from the encroachments and despotism of a tyrant king, assisted Cromwell, their General, in wresting from the people, that liberty they had so dearly earned.” Id.

The Forty-Fifth Congress considered several issues in developing the PCA: a standing army versus a militia; limited central government; and, the proper (if any) uses for an army within the confines of the territory of the Republic. Rep. Abram S. Hewitt of New York commented on the subject: “If you want to fan communism, increase your standing army and you will have enough of it.” 7 Cong. Rec. H. 3538 (1878).

Numerous examples of Constitutional violations by federal troops aiding tax agents, governors, sheriffs, and district attorneys in Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, and New York were cited to Congress. Other related troubles occurred all across the country. The problem was national in scope.

Senator Benjamin Hill of Georgia remarked, “A posse comitatus is a wholly different thing from an army; it is different in every respect from an army…” 7 Cong. Rec. 4246. He continued, “it never was lawful, it never shall be lawful, to employ the army as a posse comitatus until you destroy the distinction between civil power and the military power in this country.” Id.

Today we see the destruction of that distinction. The police appear one and the same with the military – same tactics, same equipment.

The military equipment utilized by our police largely comes from the The Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) under the 1033 program (National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 1997 (“NDAA”) (FY 1997)). “This law allows transfer of excess Department of Defense property that might otherwise be destroyed to law enforcement agencies across the United States and its territories.”

Since 1997 the program has transferred over $5 BILLION worth of military equipment to the police agencies of America – $450 million in 2013 alone. Again, the various, yearly NDAA provide Congressional cover which allows potential PCA violations to occur unabated.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) recently released a report which examined program 1033 and several examples of police militarization in the news. Kara Dansky, An MRAP Is Not a Blanket, ACLU, (12/02/2014).

Ms. Dansky recounted the police responses in Ferguson, MO and the horrific maiming of baby Bou Bou Phonesavanh in rural Georgia. The then 18 month old had “his chest ripped open and his face torn off by a flashbang grenade that police officers … threw into his crib during a paramilitary raid.” Id. The attack was part of a drug raid based on an erroneous tip from an informant – Bou Bou was not a suspect.

The Phonesavanh family faces over $1 Million in medical expenses as a result of this unnecessary, indefensible terror attack. ABC News. Look at the picture below (unpleasant).

Bou Bou is making a recovery but the police involved will not help with his recovery. UK Daily Mail. And, of course, they will face no charges for their evil acts. AJC.com.

(The fears of the Founding Fathers realized. ABC News.)

Baby Bou Bou’s ordeal blows apart the oft-repeated idiot’s argument that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.” These SS-style atrocities are oft-repeated as well – in every corner of America.

Echoing the Founding Fathers, the ACLU piece ends: “Militarized policing is dangerous, and American communities deserve better.” We’re not likely to get better any time soon. In 1980 there were approximately 3,000 paramilitary SWAT team raids in America; now there are more than 80,000 per year. Michael Synder, 10 Facts About The Growing SWAT Team Raids In America…. Over one-third of those raids are erroneous. Id. Will Grigg has an endless supply of horror stories about the needless, often deadly attacks on innocent Americans.

Yes, there are circumstances which warrant overwhelming police force, but they are few and far between. Anymore, SWAT teams are deployed for anything and everything – from traffic offenses to searches for teenagers.

The worst part of this is the near complete acceptance of these tactics by the American public. In the immediate wake of the Boston False Flag Bombing the entire city of Bay Area dutifully sheltered in place while a veritable army combed the streets looking for one man. Travel was restricted, homes were searched without warrants, businesses closed, and millions willingly surrendered their freedoms.

It is my theory that the bombing was conducted as part of a test – designed to gauge the public’s willingness to accept a police state. If I am correct, the experiment was a total success. This scenario could likely be played out anywhere. Your local police department (certainly your State) likely has the resources – the tanks, guns, training – to carry out a similar invasion. The odds are you will shelter and comply as told too.

As I have written previously, the Second Amendment was crafted to ensure the people’s ability to resist, with arms, martial tyranny. In addition to our lack of adequate arms and lack of resolve, we now have in our midst a formidable adversary. This mixture is very dangerous indeed.

Guns have been in the news again and again lately. The guns I am writing about are the privately owned guns of our citizens. Sadly, these patriotic men and women have not glorified for the millions of lives they save every year, usually without firing a shot. Rather, the entire institution of gun-ownership has been demonized by the media and the lowlifes of the political class based on a tiny number of sensationalized murder cases. This phenomenon happens from time to time and is always accompanied by a call for more gun control.

Before I get to control and its history, I want to address the most dangerous guns in America and elsewhere – publically owned or government guns. These weapons pose a true threat to the health and security of our citizens and potentially pose a dire threat to our civil liberties and freedom. Governments throughout history have proven themselves to be the least trustworthy possessors of weaponry. In the…

Prior to January 7, 2015 I don’t think I had ever heard of Charlie Hebdo, the satirical French newspaper of mixed repute. Je Suis Charlie (I am Charlie) is now ingrained in the minds of the whole world. Here are a few of my thoughts on the situation:

The paper has a long history of ticking off just about every group under the French sun. It seems some groups are more dangerous when outraged than others. In recent years the paper aggrieved Jews; no Jews attacked. Catholics were slandered; no Catholic attacks either. Politicians from every part of the spectrum earned the ire of Charlie; no attacks. Then the Mohammedans were offended; the rest is history.

(Murder in the streets. Dailymail, UK.)

As I have hinted at before, Europe is at a crossroads. Behind lay the thousands of years of Christian, Greco-Roman civilization. The crossroads are located at the depths of secular, socialist bog. One path forward surely continues the age-long journey of a proud people (fraught with problems, I know). Another path (seeming the most popular at present, politically) leads to a brave new world, fraught with problems certain. This new world is the antithesis of the old; it means a new Europe without Europe – the destruction of the cradle of Western Civilization.

I’m not prepared, yet, to go as far as Vox Day or Steve Sailer in calling the modern European melting pot a flaming disaster – I’m about a millimeter away. Instead, I offer a few simple opinions and perhaps a prophecy of sorts.

The immediate problem in Paris, and London, and Berlin, and Madrid, and New York, and Ottawa, and …. is Islamic terrorism. Sure, all Muslims are not violent killers, but the ones who are do a hell of a job. The underlying problem is the forced assimilation of utterly alien peoples into a society already reeling from a disconnect with its identity. This breeds alienation, discontent, crime and terror – none good for anyone. I do not pretend to have answers for all the world’s problems. Rather, I have here the beginnings of a (admittedly over simplified) plan to solve the terror element as presently presented. I use the French as my case study, though my approach may be directed towards the West in general.

Step one for peace is peace. It is time the French (and the rest) to stop meddling in the affairs of the middle east and other places where Western thought and culture has never taken root or stirred the slightest interest. Please don’t tell me about oil, Israel or fantasies concerning phantom threats to our freedom (the wars and intervention haven’t helped us – rather they’ve hurt us). Looking back at the past decade and a half, the wars just don’t work. They’re usually based on misinformation (lies) and malevolent intent. The wars never achieve the goals which launch them. Those goals shift with the wind anyway. We either can’t win or we won’t win and no-one can define what a win is. The wars are bankrupting us. Wars (shock) kill innocent people. Looking at the past several thousands of years, history validates our recent findings. Defense, in the unlikely event needed, yes; intervention, no. Do unto others and all that…

Step the second – stop importing droves of people from said foreign countries and alien cultures. Gasoline does not extinguish fire. Further, an immediate and sifting examination of those immigrants already in country is warranted. If some can assimilate and have – great – welcome to the new countrymen. Those who can’t or won’t, those who insist on bringing with them those terrible elements they fled from at home, those who reject the host culture or civilization itself – must go. Now. Now, before something bad (worse) happens.

The final step covers the interim preceding the first two. I saw a news video taken by an amateur videographer in Paris on the day of the Hebdo shootings. Everyone has a phone with a camera these days. It was no surprise. But, what if each would-be movie maker had been armed with a camera and a firearm? Perhaps the outcome would be the same. Perhaps armed civilians might have turned the tide. Maybe they could have prevented the atrocity by way of their known presence alone.

Armed people do a better job of repelling evil than passive bystanders; the police involved in hunting down the terrorists were well armed – to a decent result. By the way, I’m not going into the conspiracy theories some of my friends have set forth about the attacks and aftermath. While I have a healthy skepticism of “official stories” I’m taking this situation (and those in London, New York, Madrid, Ottawa, Oklahoma City, etc., etc.) at face value.

A deterrent force of armed people might speed up my second step by encouraging self-deportation of terror-minded aliens. Intelligent criminals usually prefer soft targets rather than facing off against massive return fire. Without soft targets, many might choose a different battlefield.

I realize these propositions may seemed very far-fetched in modern Europe. The ink is still drying on various European gun/freedom bans. That is the landscape of the Continent right now – it will likely change sooner or later. So comes my prophecy.

Western people have a penchant for “tolerance” which some take as a sign of weakness. By some counts this is the third large-scale invasion of Europe by Muslims. Do you know what happened the other two times?

Just as they are notoriously tolerant, Westerners are notoriously vengeful. When they (we) finally have enough, all hell breaks loose. It isn’t pretty for the other side. I would rather see a peaceful, logical solution now to these problems. However, I am confident they will be fixed one way or another. Maybe now is the time to take the gloves off. It appears that various pro-European parties may soon be swept into the governments of Europe during the next election (pro-Europeans in Europe is a shock, I’ll admit). All things being equal, as they so often are not, this would be a good occurrence. If only America had a pro-American party too. Je suis Charlie Martel?

I have an affection for New Hampshire. The air is clean. The people are friendly. They have mountains and beaches relatively close together. There’s no income tax. It’s close to Boston. It’s far enough away from Boston. The Granite State is just a beautiful place and bears a beautiful motto – Live Free or Die.

The State Constitution is also unique among written political charters. While generally resembling other such State documents as well as that of the United States this New England version has a stark difference. It’s something I am not aware of, in writing, anywhere else in the world. It contains a “Right of Revolution,” which I, here, call a Right of Rebellion (semantics).

“Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.” N. H. Const., Sect. I, Art 10 (entirety, as amended, 2007).

(The Old Man of the Mountain [NH natural wonder], Google Images)

Re-read the above and let the meaning sink in. The free people not only have a natural right but a duty to reform a corrupted government. When all other usual and peaceful methods of redress fail, the people are authorized to resist evil. Otherwise the people become subjects – slaves. That’s what “slavish” means: “of or characteristic of a slave; especially : basely or abjectly servile…” Webster’s English Dictionary, http://www.merriam-webster.com.

Further, such acquiescence is “absurd,” being illogical and futile. This is the literary embodiment of that spirit which lead early Americans to cast off the yoke of King George III.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” U.S. Declaration of Independence, Para. 1, July 4, 1776.

The Declaration proceeds with a long list of oppressive grievances committed by the King. A recount of usual redress follows: “We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Then, the Declaration: “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved…”

Mind you, this is the spirit of the former America. Today such sentiment is almost sacrosanct. Look into the heart of nearly any purported American and one finds either a zealous appreciation for total government or, at the least, a complete resolve to do nothing conducive to the ends of liberty. Worse than the loss of freedom in Columbia is the veneration of the forces which have brought forth the doom of tyranny. There exists in America today a cult of statism.

Article one artfully defines the sole legitimate reason for government: “All men are born equally free and independent; therefore, all government of right originates from the people, is founded in consent, and instituted for the general good.”

Article two evokes the Natural Law: “All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights – among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. ” Made-man law is or is supposed to be an expression of the natural law. David Miller, et al., eds, The Blackwell Encyclopedia of political Thought (Oxford 1987).

Plato asserted that freedom from and doubt of human law is the “indispensable” beginning of the search for natural law. Strauss, Natural Right and History, pg. 84, U. Chicago Press, 1953.

St. Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine posit that any law “which is not just seems to be no law at all. Hence a law has as much force as it has justice.” St. Thomas, Treatise on Law, R.J. Henle, S.J., editor, pg. 287, U. Notre Dame Press, 1993. St. Thomas goes on to say that a civil or earthly law with conflicts with natural law is a perversion rather than a law. Again, once an entire government loses its claim to justice the people have a duty to reform or disband said non-government.

Article two-a, mimics the Second Amendment and puts teeth behind the other declarations: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.” New Hampshire, with some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation, has an on-again, off-again habit of allowing carry even inside the State Capital building. N.H. lawmakers allow concealed weapons in House chambers, Boston Globe, Jan. 7, 2015. Note that NH consistently ranks as one of the safest, crime free states in the Union. 101 Reasons to Move to New Hampshire, Free State Project.

Those aiming to reform government or create anew must be able and willing to forcefully defend their cause.

The question arises as to when, exactly, does new for such cause becomes necessary and proper. People acting out individually whenever they are personally slighted does not seem just cause. Such action would inevitably lead to anarchy in the lowest sense of the word.

Article three notes, to this end: “When men enter into a state of society, they surrender up some of their natural rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void.” However, Article four affirms that “Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them.”

So, while individuals may not personally rebel without great need, they must retain the means to do so should collective need present itself.

How do or how will we know when this time comes? I do not pretend to be an expert nor arbiter of this process. For now I offer only mental food for thought. I do, however, reserve the right to expand on this theme in the future.

Here follows another popular article from years past. I ended the original article with a supposition that future, related material might be forthcoming. I’m working on such an entry right now – trying not to hold back…

I love follow-up stories. The other day I did a piece about military drones killing Americans and mentioned the Posse Comitatus Act as a possible solution. I said I’d have more to say about the Act soon. Here it is:

On June 18th of this year we will all celebrate the 135th birthday of the Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385. Happy Birthday, Pos-Com!!! Maybe you do not share my zeal? Perhaps you have never heard of this great Act or maybe you don’t know what it means. Allow me to educate you. The Posse Comitatus Act means absolutely nothing. Those who will celebrate the creation of this dead letter are those who should be prosecuted under it – namely those members of the various executive branches of the Federal and state governments.

“18 U.S.C. § 1385” is a legal citation to the United States Code, referring to Section 1385 of…

Last week I took a Tae Kwon Do class. It was the first formal martial arts training I’ve endured in many many years. I didn’t do too poorly either. The class was centered on basic movements – something it is always beneficial to revisit. Best of all, I received some professional critiquing.

Towards the end of the program we practiced side kicks into a bag. My kicks used to be semi-legendary for sheer power. Now, I am a little older and, yes, weaker than I used to be. After five or six kicks the instructor, an old friend and mentor of mine, commented that I was “holding back.” In addition to decades of experience, he was holding the bag steady and could feel the impact. I thought for a second and realized he was correct as usual. I was very happy merely lifting my leg and making precise contact but I was putting a woefully inadequate amount of strength into my delivery.

On the next kick, and those that followed, I hit hard and pushed through. Unless a kick is designed to push an opponent back in order to buy time or space, its purpose is to penetrate as deeply as possible. This requires mentally aiming into the center of the target and producing enough torque to effectively carry through the strike.

Whereas my first efforts made contact and sent a mild shock-wave through the bag, the final hits actually moved it backwards – hard. This resulted in both bag and instructor being rapidly displaced.

Afterwards I briefly reflected on why I had initially held back. What I came up with amounted to fear and uncertainty. I was unsure of whether I still had it and I figured that, being slightly out of shape, I should go easy on myself. Both of these problems resided entirely inside my head.

The mere action of kicking chest level and hitting dead center demonstrated I could still perform properly. I won’t lie – my joints and muscles hurt. Years of inactivity and a little age will do that. However, hitting full force didn’t hurt any worse than halfhearted strikes. In other words, I had nothing to lose by going all in.

(She ain’t holding back. Google images.)

This incident is allegorical to much of life. Take this blog for instance; I have scores of draft articles just sitting in limbo. It’s probably enough material for several books. My hesitation deprives me of self-expression and you of reading enjoyment.

I have a habit of writing/publishing for months at a time and then taking an equal time off. The reasons don’t really matter. The point is my inconsistency produces nothing while continued consistency would require little if any additional effort.

I bet you hold back in similar fashion – in numerous areas of life. Get with it – you’ve nothing to lose. There, you may now think of me as your martial arts/mental coaching instructor. Don’t hold back!

Amid other astounding proposals, President Obama recently proposed universal two-year college educations for Americans. This likely would mean an associates degree from a local community or technical college. It will also likely be as free as your health insurance.

The good news is you do not have to wait on Washington. A free college education is now available from one of the finest Universities in the world, and it’s not limited to a two year term.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has made virtually every course available to the public – at no cost. It’s called Open Course Ware – check it out now. The only requirements are that you have a computer, be able to read, and know basic math skills. That means it is open to just about everyone. Note – I’ve heard some sensitive nuclear engineering classes are redacted.

Here are some of the department offerings available:

Here are some classes in the political science department:

Everything is there, including graduate level classes.

When you open a class you get:

Notes, lectures, tests are all there. For a full experience you would probably need to purchase textbooks and other materials. The drawback is that even if you complete a full course load, you will not receive a degree. However, you will get the benefit of free information. It’s like auditing classes, but for free.

Take a look around and see if you find classes of interest. Yours truly may explore a few subjects. You do the same – have fun and learn something new!